Thursday, November 28, 2013

The UN Global Warming Hoax Is Slowly Dying


RenewAmerica.com:
In 2007 Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner was interviewed on the subject of sea levels. He is the head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University in Sweden. He is past president (1999-2003) of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, and leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project. Dr. Mörner has been studying the sea level and its effects on coastal areas for some 35 years.

"You have Vanuatu, and also in the Pacific, north of New Zealand and Fiji – there is the island Tegua. They said they had to evacuate it, because the sea level was rising. But again, you look at the tide-gauge record: There is absolutely no signal that the sea level is rising. If anything, you could say that maybe the tide is lowering a little bit, but absolutely no rising."


The most recent edition of Bloomberg Businessweek features a cover that says "This entire country is about to be wiped out by climate change. It won't last." It is devoted to Kribati, a Pacific island chain, and it is a total lie.

The media has been a co-conspirator to the global warming hoax and I take this latest example as one that reveals its utter desperation to maintain the greatest hoax of the modern era. The facts mean nothing to them. Real science means nothing to them. But reality is intruding on theirs and the United Nations environmental program just wrapped up Conference of Parties-19 in Warsaw, where more nations are now in open revolt.

Writing from the conference was Craig Rucker, the Executive Director of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), a think tank that has helped organize the Poles to protest this travesty. "Poland has been bullied for decades and they are not about to cede their energy independence to Russia, the UN or anyone. Nor should they."

On November 21, Rucker reported that "COP-19 was shocked when China led a block of 132 nations in a walkout over 'loss and damage.' Loss and damage is a completely bogus concept that developed nations should be legally liable when natural disasters strike developing nations. There is of course no meaningful scientific or historical link that Typhoon Haiyan/Yolanda was abnormal and with no global warming link."

We owe a debt of gratitude as well to The Heartland Institute, a Chicago-based free market think tank, that has sponsored eight international conferences on global warming since 2008 and recently released a report,"Global Warming Reconsidered II." Like CFACT it has been on the forefront of those seeking to educate the public regarding the phony science claims put forth.
RELATED: Poll: Nearly half of meteorologists don’t believe in man-made global warming

Wednesday, November 27, 2013

The Liberal Media’s Corrosive Excuse for Not Covering Controversies: Republicans Cared


Mediaite.com:
A once unspoken rule within mainstream reporting outlets has recently been exposed and, lacking any other recourse, acknowledged by an honest handful. 2013 has been a year characterized by one scandalous revelation after the other – each had been brewing for months, even years, before they were uncovered. Too often, journalists are consoling themselves and exculpating their dereliction with the fantasy that some allegations deserved to be dismissed outright only because Republicans displayed a conspicuous level of interest in them.


The latest example of this phenomenon is positively amazing and more than a little bit depressing. 

Appearing on The Steve Malzberg Show, TIME Magazine senior political analyst Mark Halperin conceded without a hint of reluctance that conservatives’ warnings about “death panels” within the Affordable Care Act was without merit. 

Halperin began by chastising the press, as an institution, for doing “nothing like an adequate job in flyspecking and scrutinizing the whole law.” 

“Part of the issue,” he said, “is that Governor [Mitt] Romney did not make healthcare the issue in the campaign because he had his own political problems.”

Halperin added that a thorough scrutiny of the ACA in the press would have been beneficial to liberals and President Barack Obama because it would have muted the sense of shock many are experiencing today. Hindsight is 20/20, I suppose. 

Moving on to the issue of end-of-life cost controls contained within the ACA, Halperin conceded that those provisions are and always were part of the law. “It’s built into the plan,” Halperin insisted. “It’s not like a guess or like a judgment. That’s going to be part of how costs are controlled.”

“There should have been more scrutiny by all the press, including the conservative press, of the specifics,” Halperin added. “There’s going to be a lot of journalism done, across the board coming up, on this issue, just as there has been now on the issue of whether people with individual plans could keep them. There’s going to be a lot of scrutiny. It should start now.”

This is a noble admission that cuts against interest and Halperin should be lauded for it. But there are no laurels in store for any member of the journalistic establishment. What Halperin is exhibiting is a pervasive and insidious instinct within the East Coast political media complex to abandon their roles as neutral arbiters of competing claims whenever Republicans become too enthusiastic about any given issue. 

Journalism professor Richard Benedetto displayed this dubious instinct in May, 2013, in the wake of a stream of embarrassing revelations about the White House’s incompetence leading up to the deadly attack on an American consulate in Benghazi. By displaying his concern about the attack in 2012, Benedetto claimed, Romney had quashed any investigative reporting. 

“The former Massachusetts governor made the colossal blunder of jumping out ahead of the president in responding to the attacks,” Benedetto wrote. “By doing that, he made himself a key player in the first news stories about the tragedy.”

He says that Obama escaped culpability in the press for pre-Benghazi blunders because Romney had made himself the focus of the story. “Several reporter questions that followed focused on whether the speed, tone and tenor of Romney’s tough criticisms were appropriate when the crisis was still unfolding and all the facts were not known,” Benedetto observed. 
RELATED:  Rothman to Hugh Hewitt: Halperin ‘In Good Company’ Not Blowing Whistle on Obamacare in 2012

Lesbian Waitress Faked Story About Being Refused a Tip

People really don't understand the undeniable, Godless and morally bankrupt foundation that comes with choosing homosexuality as the centerpiece of your life. This woman lied and people are supposed to be surprised? Funny that. Now let's see if she gives back that $2,000 in "donations" she got from naive idiots who believed her story:
With an ever-changing 24/7-news cycle, it’s refreshing to see some members of the liberal media taking the time to correct the record. While we at NewsBusters don’t usually give the liberals at NBC News much credit, for once they did a respectable job and did not completely fall for what now appears to be a complete scam by a New Jersey waitress.

You may recall last week that the media were all abuzz about a New Jersey waitress who claimed a religious family refused to tip her, writing on the receipt that they disapproved of her lifestyle. Well now New York City's NBC News 4 is reporting that a man has come forward with his copy of the receipt and a credit card statement to prove that he did, in fact, tip the waitress. What's more, this man denies he wrote the statement on her copy of the check, which says he disapproved of her lifestyle.

To his credit, MSNBC anchor Thomas Roberts relayed the story on his November 26 program. Roberts, who is openly gay, has long made his hour of daytime programming a platform for gay rights-related stories. He deserves credit for spotlighting the newest development in this story rather than leave his audience to go by the one-sided reporting they might have heard earlier in the week on MSNBC's Weekends with Alex Witt.

It was on Sunday that guest host Mara Schiavocampo briefly relayed the story of Dayna Morales and how in the aftermath of the media spotlight, she was receiving thousands of dollars in "tips" -- donations from complete strangers. Ms. Morales, a former U.S. Marine, pledged to give most of those monies to the Wounded Warrior Project.
RELATED: Family Says They Did Tip Gay Server, Didn't Leave Note

Tuesday, November 26, 2013

Supreme Court Takes Up Challenge to Obamacare’s Contraceptive Mandate

Mediaite.com:
On Tuesday, the United States Supreme Court announced that it would take up a challenge to the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive coverage mandates on the grounds that it could violate the First Amendment to the Constitution’s guaranteed religious freedoms. Lower courts have issued split decisions on the issue, forcing the nation’s highest court to finally resolve the mandate’s constitutionality.

The case has been brought by Hobby Lobby, a crafts chain with approximately 13,000 employees. The chain’s owners, the Green family, claim that forcing them to provide contraceptive coverage to their employees violates their religious beliefs. 

“The Green family has no moral objection to the use of 16 of 20 preventive contraceptives required in the mandate but it says it cannot provide or pay for four of the drugs including Plan B and Ella, the so-called morning-after pill and the week-after pill,” ABC News reports. “The Greens belief is that human life begins when sperm fertilize an egg and that it is immoral for them to facilitate any act that causes the death of a human embryo.”

In 2012, the Supreme Court ruled that the individual mandate requiring individuals to purchase health insurance could survive so long as the penalty applied to those who do not comply with the mandate was construed as a tax.
RELATED:  Uh oh: Another ObamaCare “success” story turns sour for White House

White, Liberal Writer Tommy Christopher Defends Racist ‘Knockout Game’


With no reports on gangs of white kids attacking innocent minorities as well as the mainstream media playing down reports of deaths occurring around the country due to the racist "Knockout Game", it's left up to white, liberal journalists (and resident Obamabot) like "Tommy Christopher" to whip out the race card and defend bad behavior by blacks at any cost. It's what they do to keep blacks poor and dependent as well as to keep the black vote in their pockets:
The so-called ‘Knockout Game’ has been gathering steam as a news narrative, with conservatives demanding that the media finally focus on crimes committed by black people. On Monday morning’s edition of CNN’s New Day, expert guest Harry Houck, a former NYPD detective, went there, explaining to the New Day anchor team that while “not every black kid is doing this,” the only suggestion he could offer to avoid such attacks was “crossing the street, getting away from them” if you see “a group of black youths.”

Reporting around the “Knockout Game” has been of the sketchy Shark Week variety, with a handful of cases being amplified by media attention, even when some of those cases might not even be related to the trend. For example, as The New York Times pointed out this weekend, one of the attacks that’s most played by national news outlets doesn’t appear to fit the narrative:
Much news coverage of reported knockout attacks includes 2012 footage from a surveillance camera in Pittsburgh of James Addlespurger, a high school teacher who was 50, being swiftly struck to the ground by a young man walking down an alleyway with some friends. Yet the Pittsburgh police said the attacker insisted the assault was not part of any organized “game.”
“This was just a random act of violence,” Police Commander Eric Holmes said in a televised interview last year. “He stated that he was just having a bad day that day.” The assailant saw Mr. Addlespurger, the commander said, “and decided this was a course of action he was going to take.”
That clip was part of New Day‘s package, as was CNN correspondent Pamela Brown‘s framing that incidents of the  Knockout Game “have been reported in six states and Washington, DC.”
In her report, Brown conducted man-on-the-street interviews in which she showed videos of attacks to stunned subjects.
Anchor Kate Bolduan asked former NYPD detective Harry Houck  for his take on the phenomenon. “Is this a growing trend?” she asked. “Is this an urban myth, or maybe better stated as growing trend or group of isolated incidents?”
Houck replied that the trend is real, adding that “Urban myths don’t exist. These attacks exist in everyone’s minds, especially in those victims.”
That’s when the familiar language of race-baiting began. Asked if the media was contributing to the problem by hyping the attacks, Houck replied that “I think we have to let the public know what’s going on to protect ourselves. That’s our job. That’s the police department’s job to protect the public. No matter how politically incorrect it might be. It’s to know what is going on and how to protect themselves.”
This is where the hustler hides the red card, because when co-host Chris Cuomo asks Houck to explain his remark about “political correctness” (insulating himself and his show from criticism), Houck lays his suggestion off on other people. “I ask people who I run into every day, ‘What are you doing?’ They say if they see a group of black youths, they cross the street.”

Co-host Michaela Pereira pushed back, telling Houck that “black kids don’t need to be feel, made to feel they’re a threat simply because they are hanging out with friends.”

Houck generously allowed that “Not every black kid is doing this. it’s very few, but if you are the victim, if you are a potential victim and you are afraid walking down the street, you see a group of black youths, everybody I am talking to says they are crossing the street, getting away from them,” and added that “the good black kids will be saying ‘Why are you crossing the street when I walk by?’”

While Pereira pointed out that the “majority” of black kids aren’t doing this, and Cuomo added that “Black kids are getting clocked, too,” their guest expert never gets around to offering any alternative to crossing the street to protect yourselves. He even reiterated it later in the segment, in what could double as a spot-on media criticism. “This is creating terror on the streets, I know,” Houck said. “People are, as soon as they see black youths, like I say, everybody I have talked to, I know you don’t like that, Michaela, but you can understand why they think that way.”

Houck also referenced the classic “the good blacks” frame, which reinforced his earlier suggestion that black teenagers who don’t viciously knock people out are someho the exception.

As far as anyone can tell, of course, these crimes are exceedingly rare, and you are orders of magnitude more likely to be killed or injured crossing the street than walking past a group of black youths. This sort of fear-mongering is nothing, new, though; it’s not as if white people really needed another excuse to be scared of black kids. What is somewhat new is the attempt to normalize it. Pereira’s objections notwithstanding, little is done to challenge the logic of Houck’s commentary.

CNN, and the rest of the media, would do well to resist focusing on the racial aspect of these crimes, and instead serve the public with information they can use, such as the serious medical consequences that loss of consciousness can entail.
RELATED: Horrifying New "Knockout Game" Trend Responsible for 7 Deaths

Liberal Hollywood Covers Up Plague of Animal Abuse


Breitbart.com:

According to an in-depth and potentially game-changing expose' in The Hollywood Reporter, the credit  you see at the end of movies and television shows that reassures with "No Animals Were Harmed," is nothing close to reliable. Corruption, cover-ups, and outright dishonesty plague an American Humane Association (AHA) that has apparently allowed itself to be co-opted by a Hollywood that is much more concerned with getting it on film than protecting innocent animals.

THR's reporting is filled with report after report of individual animal abuse and horrifying negligence. Dead horses (HBO's Luck, Spielberg's War Horse), punched dogs (Disney's Eight Below), squashed chipmunks (Paramount's Failure to Launch), exploded fish (Disney's Pirates of the Caribbean), etc. Most damning, though, are the statistics surrounding enforcement. Because there doesn’t seem to be any.
  
In California, AHA monitors are licensed law enforcement officials. If they witness any kind of animal abuse or negligence, this means they have the power to make arrests or issue citations. According to THR, not a single citation has been issued in over thirty years. Not one over 35,000 productions.

The conflicts of interest between Hollywood and the regulators charged with looking out for the welfare of animals involved in film and television production is literally impossible to believe:

Charges of improper coziness between the AHA and the entertainment business have been raised before. The arrangement by which the Film & TV Unit’s budget has been mostly financed — through what is currently a $2.4 million grant administered by two trade groups, the recently merged SAG-AFTRA actors’ union and the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers via its shared Industry Advancement and Cooperative Fund — long has been criticized for the inherent conflict of interest present in Hollywood bankrolling its regulator. (The IACF is endowed as part of the producers’ obligation to the actors’ union.)
This unique compact, in which a nonprofit has taken on the role of a regulator of industry in lieu of more traditional, government oversight — and therefore is not subject to public disclosure laws, allowing its work to mostly remain shrouded in secrecy — means the AHA is accountable only to Hollywood itself. 

According to THR's sources (current and former AHA employees; leaked documents and emails), this coziness has resulted in more than just looking the other way; cover ups are standing operating procedure and one AHA official alleges she was fired for attempting to protect animals from mistreatment on the set of the HBO series Luck

Naturally, the AHA disputes almost all of this, but what they do not dispute is that the "No Animals Were Harmed" disclaimer is awarded to films where animals were in fact harmed. What the disclaimer really means, according to the AHA, is that no animals were "intentionally hammed" or injured while cameras were rolling. 
RELATED:  Hollywood’s long history of animal cruelty

Barack Obama Still Denies Being A Liberal Terrorist


HotAir.com:
This is longstanding Obama shtick but feels more anachronistic by the day. Being seen as post-partisan and “pragmatic” was key to his 2008 Hopenchange message, reassuring centrists and libertarians that their fears of electing a liberal were overblown. Then he got elected, rammed through a giant stimulus, passed a landmark redistributionist health-care boondoggle, ran trillion-dollar deficits, demanded tax hikes on the rich, blocked Keystone as a favor to environmentalists, inevitably “evolved” on gay marriage, and of course remained a stalwart defender of the right to abortion. He didn’t even bother, really, with the “pragmatist” crap last year, concluding that he was better off turning out his base and trying to hold centrists by demonizing Romney than pushing more post-partisanship BS that no one would believe. Good call, as it turned out. He got reelected — and then began his second term with a big gun-control campaign followed by a call for action from Congress on legalizing illegals. Right down the middle, our Barry.

I don’t know why he’s come back to this now, five years in. Maybe, as the walls close in from the ObamaCare debacle, Democrats feel some atavistic impulse to return to what worked in the past. The “extremist Republicans” narrative was a sterling success for them in 2012. Think it’ll help with someone who’s now paying an extra $200 a month in health-insurance premiums?
Despite those problems, the White House expressed optimism on Sunday that Democrats could regain control of the House of Representatives, which has blocked many of Obama’s top policy priorities – on ideological grounds, Democrats would say.
The president called that chamber a barrier to progress in his remarks and said there would be broad consensus on issues such as immigration reform if politics were stripped away.
“I’m not a particularly ideological person,” he said, saying pragmatism was necessary to advance the values that were important to him.
Says Jonah Goldberg drily of Obama’s self-styled pragmatism, “Saying he only cares about ‘what works’ at this point in his presidency is more of a problem given that his signature achievement, you know, doesn’t.”
Simple question: Don’t liberals consider Reagan an ideological conservative even though he deviated from conservative orthodoxy in certain ways? Obama’s been surprisingly hawkish on drone strikes and NSA surveillance despite his liberal pedigree; Reagan, depicted as a crazed warmonger by some of his lefty critics, stuck to diplomacy with the Soviet Union and withdrew from Lebanon not long after the barracks bombing. He also signed the most permissive amnesty for illegal aliens in modern American history and gave up on abolishing the Department of Education despite running on it in 1980. The entitlement state weathered eight years of his presidency (and 12 years of Bushes) to deliver the fiscal crisis that threatens the country now. In fact, one of the left’s favorite ways to needle tea partiers is to claim that their hero, the Gipper, governed too moderately to be nominated by the GOP today. Does that mean Reagan wasn’t really an ideological conservative?

Of course not. No one, Obama included, disputes that he was. He split from doctrinaire conservatism when political realities of the moment forced him to, but his vision was one of smaller government, lower taxes, and robust defense spending to counter communism. It’s also political reality that tends to force O’s deviations to the center. If he had refused to use Bush’s counterterrorism tools and the country had suffered a major terrorist attack, the political fallout for Democrats would have been brutal. He could have crafted his own entitlement reform deal with Democrats in 2009 when they controlled Congress, but he made no serious gestures towards it until the GOP reclaimed the House and Boehner gave him a reason to discuss it. Even his signature boondoggle, which the left now likes to remind people is a public/private hybrid, is a hybrid of necessity: Not only would it have been a bridge too far politically for a few centrist Democrats in Congress to pass single-payer, it would have been enormously disruptive to health coverage in America, needless to say. Obama himself has said in the past that he’d prefer single-payer if we were starting from scratch — pretty ideological! — but that economic reality is what it is, leaving a hybrid system the only option. ObamaCare’s not his preference, it’s just the best he can do. That’s not “ideological”?
RELATED:  The Five: If Obama’s Not a ‘Real Socialist,’ Does That Make Him a ‘Fake’ One?